A pendant to the post below: Glenn Greenwald is another one of those "citizen journalists"who periodically takes a poke at the "Mainstream" press. This post is a good example. Bit and pieces, mostly about the Washington press corps and its failings as an independent entity. Another thing the Democrats have to take back -- they've made a start by cutting Fox out of the debate line-up, but there's lots more to do. A couple of choice bits:
This article by The New York Times' Adam Nagourney, in which he recounts the central role he and the Times played in the "John-Edwards-Loves-His-Hair-Like-a-Sissy" story, by publishing anonymous "Breck Girl" smears back in 2004. The smears were from what Nagourney back then called "Bush associates" (but which he today describes as people at "senior levels of the Bush political operation"). That article granted anonymity to "Bush associates" to call Edwards a girl and to say that John Kerry "looks French."
For some entirely indiscernible reason, it appears that Nagourney woke up recently and was hit with the realization that maybe one of the reasons why such petty and vacuous stories dominate our political discourse is because he and his esteemed colleagues at The New York Times eagerly offer themselves up as instruments for disseminating such personal smears.
The bulk of Nagourney's article is self-justification. Granted, the original article was about the Bush strategy in 2004, but to put that particular smear in the rather prominent position of last paragraph raised my eyebrows a bit -- particularly since there is no elaboration beyond the "White House advisor" tags. The 2004 piece is basically a free plug for Bush and the Republicans, of the "see how on top of things and well-organized they are" variety. Nagourney and his colleage Richard Stevenson seemed to have lost any vestige of a real journalist's healthy skepticism. I have to ask whether Nagourney would have felt impelled to write the "mea culpa -- sort of" if the Democrats were not on an upswing. Or even worse, can we now look forward to a period of NYT swallowing Democratic press releases whole?
And as far as Edwards specifically is concerned, should we pass by a candidate who is rich but cares about the poor in favor of a candidate who is richer and doesn't give a damn?
Greenwald also gives us a small retrospective of Stephen Colbert's devastating speech at last years' White House Correspondents' Dinner:
As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.
Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home.
Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know -- fiction!
Is it any wonder that Colbert was not invited back?
And isn't it sad when most Americans get their political news from Comedy Central because that's the only reliable source?
No comments:
Post a Comment